Show your support by purchasing VDARE.com merchandise. 
VDARE.com's Amazon connection has been restored! Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
"Demography is destiny in American politics."
That was the first line of an article that
Peter
Brimelow and I wrote in the late 1990s:
Electing a
New People (National
Review, June 16, 1997). We pointed out that, while
voting patterns of the various races
change very slowly, the county's demographic profile
is shifting rapidly—because of immigration policy. In
effect the
federal government is electing a new,
less
Republican people. (For a 2001 update, see
here).
Subsequent events have confirmed our thesis. The
foreign-born population increased by nearly 50%—from
27.2 million in 1997 to 40 million today. Illegal aliens
became the fastest growing segment of the foreign born
population. Hispanics
displaced Blacks as the
largest U.S. minority.
Meanwhile,
Black and
Hispanic voters remain
overwhelmingly Democratic.
But although
immigration policy is the prime mover of
demographic shift, the immigrants themselves are
not. It is
their U.S.-born children who account for most of it.
In 2004, for example, immigrants,
legal and illegal, accounted for 12% of the
population—but
24% of total births.
Over the long haul, children of immigrants are projected
to be even more important:
"Births in the
United States will play a growing role in Hispanic and
Asian population growth; as a result, a smaller
proportion of both groups will be foreign-born in 2050
than is the case now." [
Which brings us to the question Peter asked me to
address in this article: what would be the impact of
ending the
birthright citizenship that is conferred by the
current interpretation the 14th Amendment on
the future U.S. electorate?
Our quick and dirty calculation starts with this key
fact: an estimated 380,000 anchor babies will be born to
illegal alien mothers this year—an amazing
10% of all births
in the U.S. These babies will become eligible to
vote in 2028—a Presidential election year. If they
all vote
as
Hispanics did in 2008 (namely,
67%
Obama; 31% McCain), they will increase the
Democratic total by a net 136,800.
Put another way, ending birthright citizenship today
could benefit the Republican standard bearer by a net
136,800 in 2028 as a result of one year's births alone,
That may not look much.
But it vital to
grasp that the effect of the birthright citizenship
loophole is cumulative. Thus the number of
birthright Democrats born to illegals will compound
rapidly after 2028—by the next Presidential election,
2032, they would be a net 547,000 advantage to the
Democrats.
Of course, McCain lost in 2008 by 8.5 million votes. But
many Presidential elections are much closer—for example,
George W. Bush "triumphed"
in 2004 by
barely
three million votes.
Moreover, the impact of
ending birthright citizenship is not merely limited
to the children of post-2010 illegals. Their
grandchildren and great-grandchildren will not be
citizens either—ad infinitum.
What will this add up to? The Census makes estimates of
the total foreign-born population and the illegal alien
population—about 40 million and 12 million,
respectively. (Private estimates of the illegal
population range up to
20 million). A crude way of expressing the rate at
which illegal aliens have babies is to divide annual
anchor births by the total (male and female) illegal
alien population. Do the division—380,000/12.0
million—and you get 3.2%.
That is the "illegal
alien birthrate".
And it's is huge. The same calculation for Black
non-Hispanics yields a 1.6% birthrate. For white
non-Hispanics, 1.2%.
To assess the impact of closing the birthright
citizenship loophole, we assume birth rates remains
constant over time. And we also assume the illegal alien
share of the foreign-born population will remain at its
current level—30%—indefinitely. (This fraction actually
rose for most of the period since the 1986 amnesty, but
it
may have stalled in the current recession.)
So would be the impact of
ending birthright citizenship as of January 1, 2010
on the future U.S. electorate? The Republican vote?
Extrapolating from the Pew Hispanic Center's
foreign-born population projections:
|
The
Anchor Baby Tsunami, 2010-2100
(millions) |
||||||
|
|
Total Population (a) |
Foreign-born population (b) |
Illegal Alien
Population (b) |
Anchor Births
in Year (c) |
Cumulative Anchor
Births
since 2010 |
Cumulative Anchor
Grandchildren since 2010 (d) |
|
2010 |
309.7 |
40.0 |
12.0 |
0.380 |
0.380 |
0.000 |
|
2020 |
340.2 |
49.5 |
14.9 |
0.470 |
4.661 |
0.000 |
|
2030 |
371.8 |
59.7 |
17.9 |
0.566 |
9.881 |
0.086 |
|
2040 |
403.7 |
70.2 |
21.1 |
0.667 |
16.088 |
1.409 |
|
2050 |
438.2 |
81.3 |
24.4 |
0.772 |
23.325 |
4.592 |
|
2100 |
660.3 |
169.1 |
50.7 |
1.606 |
80.681 |
51.484 |
|
a.
b.
30% of the foreign-born population. c.
3.2% of the illegal alien population.
d. Assumes that half of
anchor births are females and their fertility
rate equals that of Mexicans living in the |
||||||
Between 2010 and 2050, we project 23.3 million anchor
babies will be born to illegal aliens in the U.S.
Somewhere less than half of them —11.0 million—will be
of voting age in 2050. We estimate they will raise the
Democratic vote by 4 million net.
Fast forward to 2100. By then, 80.7 million post-2010
anchor babies will have been born. Some 55 million of
them will be of voting age. If they all vote, the
Democratic vote margin will increase by 19.8 million
net.
By comparison, the
largest popular vote margin of victory in U.S. history
was 16.9 million, when
Reagan beat Mondale in 1984.
Next: anchor grandchildren. We assume that (a) half of
anchor babies are female; and (b) their fertility rate
equals that of Mexican women living in the United States
(3.51
children per mother over her childbearing years, 18
to 45.)
By 2050, some 4.6 million anchor grandchildren will have
been born to female anchors. Only 219,000 will be of
voting age that year. But by 2100, the grandkid
contingent swells to 51.8 million—of which 29.6 million
will be of voting age.
If they vote like Hispanics did in 2008, the Democratic
vote will increase by another 10.7 million net.
(We haven't said anything about
male
anchor babies. Our implicit simplifying assumption
is that they are the fathers of the anchor
grandchildren. If, however, they father children outside
the anchor baby community, they could tack on another
21.4 million to the Democratic majority in 2100—that is,
if both parents were required to be
legal
residents, the potential impact of ending birthright
citizenship on the grand-kid electorate could double.)
Bottom line: unless the birthright citizenship loophole
is reformed, it could increase the Democratic popular
vote by 41.2 million net in 2100, when the total
electorate will number 480 million.
More than half of that, or 21.4 million, will be due to
the anchor grandchildren born after 2010.
Of course, the effect will be concentrated in the
immigration-impacted states. For example, an
estimated 117,000 anchor babies were born in 2002 in
California, probably a third of the total for the entire
U.S.
Oh, and by the way—none of this counts the
great-grandchildren
of illegal immigrants, of whom there will be probably
2.0 to 2.3 million in 2100.
Needless to say, in this back-of the-envelope
calculation we've made heroic (albeit entirely
reasonable) assumptions. Our challenge to critics: go
make your own calculations.
In fact, why
haven't you done it already?
Bottom line: ending birthright citizenship could slow
the immigration-driven drift to disaster of the GOP
(a.k.a. the
party of the
historic American nation)) by as much as half.
No wonder the proposal is provoking such hysteria.
Edwin S. Rubenstein (email him) is President of ESR Research Economic Consultants in Indianapolis.